AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
Does X have anything to do with the appearance of Sarah's face in her avatar(s)? If not why not?
Post-Gen X meets nuclear waste?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Does X have anything to do with the appearance of Sarah's face in her avatar(s)? If not why not?
I was under the impression that something is always right only if it is XX; at least, anything less than XX must pretend that XX is always right, otherwise unspeakable horrors come upon the anything that is less than XX. I have no idea what this means, but I think I read it in "Dad's Tool Shed."
X must be true or false. It cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. It can't drive down the middle of the street because that would violate the law of the excluded middle.
What were we talking about again?
What were we talking about again?
What were we talking about again?
Here is the link which proves my proposition beyond a shadow of doubt ...
The Question of X
This thread is going to cause me to believe in the Rapture.
What were we talking about again?
The title says Proposition X
How you'd do that!?
Interesting discussion. Since your typing 'X' on your keyboard and scheme is based on the ASCII character set, the integer representation of 'X' is 88. Since computers actually only understand is binary our conversion from decimal to binary produces 1011000. Therefor, X is 1011000.
Interesting discussion. Since your typing 'X' on your keyboard and scheme is based on the ASCII character set, the integer representation of 'X' is 88. Since computers actually only understand is binary our conversion from decimal to binary produces 1011000. Therefor, X is 1011000.
Excellent point ... and
10 = T
11 = r
00 = u
0 = e
Interesting discussion. Since your typing 'X' on your keyboard and scheme is based on the ASCII character set, the integer representation of 'X' is 88. Since computers actually only understand is binary our conversion from decimal to binary produces 1011000. Therefor, X is 1011000.
Excellent point ... and
10 = T
11 = r
00 = u
0 = e
10 = F
11 = a
00 = l
01 = s
0 = e
Excellent point ... and
10 = T
11 = r
00 = u
0 = e
10 = F
11 = a
00 = l
01 = s
0 = e
that 01 = s is a gloss inserted in the text by a scribe who was dyslexic and mistook the initial 10 in the series.
X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.
Methinks this is all a veiled attempt to seek to make fun of sound reasoning. This happens when one cannot come up with sound arguments and so humor is used to deflect and diffuse.
X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.
Hi Beth! Haven't seen you for forever!!!!!
X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.
Wait, wait, wait... what does the Decalogue have to do with a big shirt for dyslexic people?
X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.
Wait, wait, wait... what does the Decalogue have to do with a big shirt for dyslexic people?
That would be a XXXL and require a new translation using whatever manuscripts we can find at the basement in Wal-Mart
Hi Beth! Haven't seen you for forever!!!!!
Also X is confessional, we have a chapter X in the WCF.
Also X is confessional, we have a chapter X in the WCF.
Yep, already cited it!
Also X is confessional, we have a chapter X in the WCF.
Yep, already cited it!
I apologize for my platitude, I must have missed your OP.